On Speech Problems with Fixed Restorations on Implants in the Edentulous Maxilla: Introduction of a Novel Management Concept
Bibliographic record
Abstract
BACKGROUND: Little attention has been paid to the effect of implant restorations on speech. PURPOSE: The aim of this study was threefold: (1) to find out if speech problems occur after inserting a fixed provisional restoration in the edentulous maxilla; (2) to explore speech adaptation in case articulation problems arise after rehabilitation; and (3) to describe the effect of changing the shape of the restoration on improving speech. MATERIALS AND METHODS: Ten patients with an edentulous maxilla were treated with fixed rehabilitation on implants. Speech evaluation was performed at four occasions: before implant surgery, immediately after restoration, and 3 weeks later before and after managing the speech problem by changing the shape of the restoration if speech problems occurred. Comparative three-dimensional-analysis of casts of the restoration before and after changing the shape of the restoration was carried out. RESULTS: The majority of patients (n = 7) experienced speech problems immediately after rehabilitation. Three weeks later, none of the seven patients with deteriorated speech returned to baseline speech. Then, volumetric reduction of the palatal aspects of the (pre)molars was performed, which allowed speech to return to baseline levels in five out of seven patients. In the two remaining patients, the intervention resulted in an improvement of speech without reaching their baseline levels. Three-dimensional-analysis showed that reducing the palatal volume of the premolars was effective in correcting speech. CONCLUSIONS: Speech problems may frequently occur after fixed rehabilitation of the completely edentulous maxilla. A novel speech management concept, consisting of reducing the palatal volume of the (pre)molars, is introduced, demonstrating to solve speech problems in most cases.
Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.
How this classification was reachedexpand
Full frame machine prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.002 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
Machine scores (provisional)
The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.
How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".